The countdown begins to when one of these "civil rights" commissions orders a Christian church to accomodate homosexuals' "wedding" ceremony. The First Amendment will not matter. Gay rights trump the Constitution.

Logged

I have decided to officially and formally not apologize. I'm not sorry at all, even slightly.

Indeed, I especially want to convey my absence of remorse to anyone who was offended by what I said. If you are the sort of person who gets twisted into knots when someone articulates a point of view that differs from your own, then you are exactly the sort of person who should never receive an apology for a differing point of view â€” if I were offering one, which, again, I'm not.

The countdown begins to when one of these "civil rights" commissions orders a Christian church to accomodate homosexuals' "wedding" ceremony. The First Amendment will not matter. Gay rights trump the Constitution.

The end game has always been the outlawing of Christianity. The left doesn't care about the bleep. They're a means to an end. Once the Christians are gone, the left will turn on the bleep like rabid dogs.

Logged

"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them." H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

How is the baker case different, than a small retailer saying no to blacks who want to shop at his store?...What if a baker said no, to a Jewish holiday cake?

The difference is freedom. If I choose not to employ my labor and materials for whatever reason in a world that is truly free that is my right regardless of what you and administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer may feel about it. Just who are you and he to tell me I must do otherwise?

In addition, however, this case and others sprouting about involve freedom of conscience, a right at the very least implied in the 1st Amendment. Where are "homosexual rights" found in the Constitution and from whence arises the power that you and this judge have to order me to violate my own principles?

« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 06:34:44 PM by Cincinnatus »

Logged

We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

The end game has always been the outlawing of Christianity. The left doesn't care about the bleep. They're a means to an end. Once the Christians are gone, the left will turn on the bleep like rabid dogs.

They already do.

I have a fair number of homosexual friends and acquaintances. A few transgender friends. (Big deal, I'm also friends with strippers, prostitutes, and body builders). We keep in touch in person, by email and on facebook. By far the worst insults, slurs and vitriol they get that I have seen are from the left.

Fag and gay are go to insults for youths - not exactly welcoming, is it?

Oceander

Yes, and slavery was once legal and abolitionists should have just accepted that...

You don't get it, do you. The fact of the matter is this: a state government has all the power it needs to pass, and enforce, laws of this sort. Such a law violates no provision of the US Constitution. Or are we now going to toss aside those states' rights principles we've been insisting on?

The comparison to slavery is particularly egregious. A slave had no choice but to serve; a slave was not free to quit, enter a new line of business, or move to a different state.

So, since Colorado is enforcing a rule it has sufficient power to enforce - even if the rule is stupid and objectionable - the baker has two choices: buckle down and follow the law, or move to a more inviting community. That, or he could just pay the fines.

Then I'll use a different example. How about discriminating based on religion?

What if a baker said no, to a Jewish holiday cake?

He can say he doesn't have the skill to create a specific pattern nor stock the decoration for XYZ holiday. He may not have a Steve and Steve wedding cake topper. Does this now mean he is forced to carry a product he doesn't normally carry? Should he be required to purchase and offer for sale this cake topper in order to meet the 'order'?

You don't get it, do you. The fact of the matter is this: a state government has all the power it needs to pass, and enforce, laws of this sort. Such a law violates no provision of the US Constitution. Or are we now going to toss aside those states' rights principles we've been insisting on?

The comparison to slavery is particularly egregious. A slave had no choice but to serve; a slave was not free to quit, enter a new line of business, or move to a different state.

So, since Colorado is enforcing a rule it has sufficient power to enforce - even if the rule is stupid and objectionable - the baker has two choices: buckle down and follow the law, or move to a more inviting community. That, or he could just pay the fines.

No you don't get it. The fact of the matter is that, using your own argument, slavery was once legal and abolitionists should have just accepted it.

Clearly you can rationalize anything, but that's no big deal. Anybody can rationalize anything, and often do just that...

Logged

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

The fact of the matter is this: a state government has all the power it needs to pass, and enforce, laws of this sort. Such a law violates no provision of the US Constitution. Or are we now going to toss aside those states' rights principles we've been insisting on?

I wonder how he squares that with the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, section 4.

Quote

Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Or maybe Article II, section 3:

Quote

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness